« Time to rob Peter and pay Paul: A "contractual obligation" piece (5 of 7) | Main | Is Free Speech In Danger At The University Of Oregon? »

The Numbers Are ***Not*** On Teddy's Side

In regards the most noticed line from Edward Kennedy's ill-time, but impasioned speech about the US presence in Iraq. Kennedy said,

We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Leaving aside the delusional idea that a quick cut-and-run by US forces would be beneficial, there is some support for Kennedy's assertion according to a forthcoming report on the BBC's news magazine show Panorama. New statistics from Iraq show that coalition and Iraqi forces are responsible for more deaths than insurgents.

Conflict-related civilian deaths in Iraq. July 2004 to January 2005

  • 3,274 civilians killed in total

  • 2,041 by coalition and Iraqi security forces

  • 1,233 by insurgents

  • 12,657 civilians wounded in total

  • 8,542 by coalition and Iraqi security forces

  • 4,115 by insurgents
Of course the numbers aren't directly comparable. 1,200 to 1,500 insurgents were killed in Fallujah in the November battle to retake the city and it's not entirely clear how many of that number are excluded from the coalition totals or if other casualties that may not be "innocent" civilians are part of the total.

The numbers prove one thing though... it's still war.

*** Update: Turns out the numbers aren't on Kennedy's side. The BBC was lying... The corrected BBC report is here.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Numbers Are ***Not*** On Teddy's Side:

» No Oil for Pacifists linked with Democracy, Not Quagmire

Comments (16)

- Kennedy is playing to the... (Below threshold)

- Kennedy is playing to the Deaniac left trying desperately to ward off the Clintoneesta's...its also good timing to devert attention from the Iraqi elections so it won't be too obvious when the liberal MSM is underwhelming in its coverage.... that is as long as things go well....

Goddamn right it's still wa... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

Goddamn right it's still war Kevin.

And war aint pretty. We need to stay the course and support the troops.

I don't know what your point of putting up these alleged "BBC" casualty reports, unless you're somehow trying to support anti-war liberals or something. Which I hope you're not, since if you start down that path, many many more AMERICANS WILL LOSE THEIR LIVES!

The bottom line is casualties ultimately do not matter. What matters is WINNING. I've been in war, and it's all about bleeding and getting the job done. The American people knew this, and knew they had to bleed...THAT"S WHY WE ELECTED OUR PRESIDENT!


I don't trust those numbers... (Below threshold)

I don't trust those numbers, if there's any doubt at all who is repsonsible you can bet the BBC put the death in our column. I've seen enough news stories in the last 12 months about civilian causalties caused by car bombs and other terrorist attacks to put the 1,233 deaths attributed to the TERRORISTS to shame. Let's call them what they are, they aren't insurgents. Insurgents don't murder their own country's police and civilians either. Nine Iraqi citizens were killed by car bombs on the 27th, pretty much a typical day for the last year and those can only blamed on the terrorists. I've read several articles about people there just murdered and left laying on the streets, my guess is the BBC will automatically put them in our column if nobody came forward and say they Zarqawi do it.

Hang on a minute.L... (Below threshold)

Hang on a minute.

Let's go back to Nancy Youssef's Sep 04 report, which is also based on Iraqi Health ministry numbers:


And look:

"the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 - when the ministry began compiling the data - until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children."

Yes my friends. 94% of the casualties were adult males.

"civilians" my ass.

Also, if you factor in the ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Also, if you factor in the fact that many of the coalition casualties were because they were trying to get insurgents, who is really at fault? If the insurgents weren't doing their insurgent thing, and we all know they do their insurgent thing purposefully among civilians, the coalition wouldn't have any reason to bomb or shoot.

Exactly, so what if some ci... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

Exactly, so what if some civilians die.

They are dying for freedom for others. Sacrifice is a big part of war.

I would say a free Iraq is probably worth a few hundred thousand civilian deaths before it gets too much to bear. I mean, Saddam killed over 5 MILLION of HIS OWN PEOPLE.

So a few hundred thousand is fine by me if it means it will never happen again!

Every paragraph can be mark... (Below threshold)
Drew - Dallas, TX:

Every paragraph can be marked suspect in Kennedy's speech.

For example:

The President bungled the pre-war diplomacy on Iraq and wounded our alliances

Pre-war diplomacy? We've heard all of this bullshit before. So after the world witnessed the "pre-war diplomacy" between Kuwait and Iraq which went terribly, terribly wrong, we're all supposed to speculate what the Administration could have done right with diplomatic relations between the UN/Iraq? If the Bush Administration can't do anything correctly now according to Kennedy's accusations, why would he state that diplomacy could have worked?

Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.

But Teddy, the French also apparently lost their bid to keep Iraq under their part of the UN umbrella? So we aren't entirely like the French as you would have us believe.

The President recklessly declared “Mission Accomplished”

Um, no Jack Daniels, he didn't. The mission to remove Saddam had been accomplished successfully however. Our military is great at kicking ass offensively, but as Kennedy notes, we are a sub par occupation force. However, that's what the UN is for Teddy. Why isn't he bitching about them? Because he's weak.

The ugly fact is that the UN failed (and apparently lied for good rea$on) which is never mentioned by Kennedy. He can somehow throw in important parts of history like Vietnam and the French Algeria campaign, but leave out the 12+ years of UN failures that led Bush to finally say "enough". During patrols over the no-fly zone, our pilots were being shot at routinely, but where was this fantastic diplomacy under the Clinton Administration?

As for the numbers, this is indeed war, and not drinking shots to the Bob Newhart show, which Kennedy would win hands down.

I'd go on defending my country against - a fellow countryman? But why? I wouldn't say Kennedy hates his country, just half of it. I was reading his speech and it makes you wonder what type of brainstorming was done to come up with this shit, and even more frightening, what was left out of the speech?

To say that the nombers giv... (Below threshold)

To say that the nombers given by the BBC are more than a little supsect is a definite understatement. On 1-21-05 14 people were killed by a car bomb as they left a mosque in Baghdad, later that day 7 more were murdered by a car bomb while leaving a wedding. Between the two attacks 56 were wounded, and some may have died later, but those deaths would hardly benewsworthy by BBC standards. That's well over 1% of the total deaths the BBC is willing to attribute to terrorists in Iraq in one day. Every day there are similar stories and very few days pass without 5 or more killed. Days with greater numbers of victims are all too frequent for the numbers to be even close. I would be very surprised if the true umbers weren't more than triple what they claim, and the numbers given for coalition forces substantially lower. I also doubt the combined numbers aren't lower than Saddam's true body count for most any of his years in power.

The BBC is backing off thei... (Below threshold)

The BBC is backing off their claims now.

"The BBC reported these figures as meaning that the deaths and injuries resulting from "military operations" were the result of actions by the Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces.

Today, the Iraqi Ministry of Health has issued a statement clarifying matters that were the subject of several conversations with the BBC before the report was published, and denying that this conclusion can be drawn from the figures relating to military operations. It states that those recorded as killed in military action included Iraqis killed by terrorists, not only those killed by Coalition forces or Iraqi security forces; and that those recorded as killed in military action included terrorists themselves, and Iraqi security forces.

The BBC regrets mistakes in its published and broadcast reports yesterday."

Any non combatant civilan d... (Below threshold)

Any non combatant civilan deaths are bad. So are coalition force losses. At the same time my local newspaper editors allow people to send letters quoting the stupid Lancet numbers of 100,000 deaths. This report should cut back on some of the propoganda from the Lancet study.

I have to agree that the la... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I have to agree that the lancet number quote is annoying, and misleading, and the people who keep quoting it either know this, or have read too many DNC talking points without doing any of their own research.

Also, I wonder why the BBC didn't clarify those numbers with the Iraqi ministry of health? Sounds like the BBC was looking for the sexy story, and not accuracy.

If only there was a way for... (Below threshold)

If only there was a way for the BBC to unring that bell like you have. Just like the Lancet article, people will be citing the figures as originally presented from now on.

A question to teddy boy,</... (Below threshold)
The Enigma:

A question to teddy boy,

How many troops would it have taken to save the life of Mary Jo Kopechne?

Does anyone know the breakd... (Below threshold)

Does anyone know the breakdown of the coalition troops per country or even their names?


- In response to Kennedy's ... (Below threshold)

- In response to Kennedy's pro-Jihadist speech Ms Kopechne could not be reached for comment....

- One of the Iraqi consulate workers mentioned on FOX the other day that so far the interum government has gathered a list of 1.2 million Iraqi's that have been murdered under Husseins regime in the years he ruled.... and they haven't reached the end of the counting yet.... Wonder why that never shows up in any of the AssHat crowds speeches.....

Wish someone would just bur... (Below threshold)

Wish someone would just bury this guy.







Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy